매매대금반환
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows: the court's explanation of this case is as follows: the 6th one of the judgments of the first instance court as "self-reliance"; the 9th one as "public inspection"; and the 9th one as "final inspection"; and the part concerning the plaintiff's new dispute as the grounds for appeal is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for the addition as follows. Thus, it is accepted by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act
2. Judgment on the ground for appeal by the plaintiff
A. The Defendants asserted that the representative director is the same and in fact the same company, and thus, the indication of intent to terminate the contract against Defendant B Co., Ltd. on March 16, 2017 should be deemed to have been made to the Defendants. Even if not, the instant sales contract should be deemed to have been cancelled as the delivery of a duplicate of the complaint stating the declaration of intent to terminate the contract.
B. First of all, inasmuch as the Defendants have separate legal personality, the mere fact that the representative director, inside director, and auditor of the Defendants are identical is the same, the Defendants cannot be deemed as having expressed their intent to cancel the contract on March 16, 2017 against Defendant B, which was actually the same company by the Defendants.
In addition, it is apparent in the record that the duplicate of the complaint of this case stating the Plaintiff’s declaration of intent to cancel the instant sales contract reaches the Defendants on March 30, 2017. However, unless the Plaintiff did not provide the remainder payment obligation in the simultaneous performance relationship between the notice of performance and the Defendants’ obligation to pay the commercial buildings of this case, the said declaration of intent to cancel the contract cannot be deemed lawful.
After all, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.
3. The judgment of the first instance court is just and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.